Skip to content

what makes an effective event?

This document outlines what an effective dialogue event should be like and the potential barriers to achieving this.

A model of good practice has been developed using a psychology model outlining five levels of needs which have to be met if an individual is to reach their full potential: Maslow's theory of Self Actualization.

Abraham Maslow defined the levels of need as physiological, safety, acceptance, self esteem and self actualization (see diagram). These five levels of need are placed in a hierarchy and each level of need must be satisfied before the needs at the next higher level are considered and a person eventually attains their full potential.

a model of an effective dialogue event

Drawing on this model we have outlined a hierarchy of needs which have to be met if an event is to be fully successful.The modified Maslow model for dialogue events (see below) applies to all participants; both speakers and members of the audience. Safety needs have not been taken into account in the adapted model as they are not relevant in this particular case. However, it should be remembered that safety fears such as terrorist attacks may affect the numbers and type of people who will be willing to attend

For a dialogue-based event the levels of needs in Maslow's model have been reclassified as:

Physical; anything pertaining to the physical comfort of the participants - speakers and audience.

Emotional/social acceptance; participants feel emotionally comfortable, they feel that they belong there, they do not feel as if they are being judged. This level could be described as how someone feels that the other participants view them.

Intellectual; all participants feel they have something to contribute, that their opinion is of value, and that they have learnt something.

Social capital; participants feel that they have taken part in something worthwhile and constructive, participants leave with a sense of accomplishment, the effect from attending the event lasts longer than the event itself.

Again each level of needs must be met to at least a reasonable degree before the next higher level of needs can be considered. Thus for an event participants have to be physically comfortable, feel emotionally/socially secure, feel they have something to contribute before they attain a sense of accomplishment. Very few events will make it to the highest levels but the higher up the hierarchy of needs an event fails at, the more successful it can be judged to be.

outcomes: what would a successful event be like?

These outcomes are indices of observed participant behaviours, or statements made by participants, which would indicate that the event has been successful. Note, these outcomes refer to all participants (speakers and audience members).

Physical Needs

  • All participants are physically comfortable for the duration of the event (comfortable seating, correct temperature, appropriate light levels, minimal external distractions).
  • All contributors can be seen and heard by everyone (the audience, chair and speakers).

Emotional/Social Acceptance

  • All participants understand the basic structure and purpose of the event.
  • All participants feel included i.e. no one feels that they should not be there.
  • The target audience matches who the participants perceive themselves to be and who they identify as their peers (age, gender, ethnicity, social class).
  • The style and tone of the event is matched to the target audience.
  • The location of the event is matched to the target audience in terms of access. Access includes both emotional (e.g. it is not held somewhere perceived to be imposing or dreary) as well as physical access
  • The content of the event is matched to the target audience in terms of level, interest and relevance.
  • Staff are helpful and respect all participants.
  • There is no feeling of 'them and us' e.g. certain participants know each other well and the event is being run for their benefit.
  • All participants feel able to contribute. They feel comfortable about contributing, they feel their opinions will be respected and listened to, they feel that the audience will be empathetic or at least sympathetic to their point of view.)

Intellectual

  • Invited contributors articulate their opinions/arguments clearly in a way that is well structured and can be easily understood by all participants. The proposed outcomes of the event are clearly communicated to all participants.
  • The event is thought-provoking for its intended audience
  • Participants' viewpoints (both audience and speakers) are challenged e.g.valid/powerful alternative views are presented which cause participants to reassess what their own views are and why they hold them; issues are addressed in interesting/different ways.
  • Participants learn something from the event (this includes cognitive, affective, social and/or personal learning).
  • Participants want to contribute (they have something to say, they feel their opinions are of value to the on-going debate).
  • The event facilitates structured dialogue and not just emotional responses/outbursts.
  • Dialogue develops between the participants (amongst the audience and between the speakers). Relevant opinions are expressed, participants response to earlier comments by speakers or members of the audience, new ideas and opinions are added to the discussion during the event (i.e. it is not just the same thing being said over and over again; participants do not simply express entrenched views about the topic).
  • Participants add something new to the debate (factual/moral/ethical dimensions)
  • Participants viewpoints are listened to and treated with respect by all other participants.
  • The event matches who the target audience aspire to be.

Social Capital

  • Participants feel that they are meeting experts/famous people who are involved in the issue and that they have parity with them.
  • Participants feel that they have something worthwhile to say to these experts/famous people.
  • Participants feel that they have taken part in something worthwhile.
  • Participants feel that their voice has been heard; that they have had an effect (on other people, on organisations, on policy).
  • Participants feel empowered by the event i.e. their involvement changes from passive to active so that they continue their engagement with the debate/issue after the event has ended e.g. they are motivated to do something, they continue the debate.
  • Participants leave with a sense of accomplishment.

barriers to a good event

Barriers are anything which cause an event to fail at any of the four levels of needs; physical, emotional/social acceptance, intellectual acceptance and social capital and which therefore prevent the event from being fully successful. Some of the potential barriers listed below fit into more than one category. These barriers can exist for all participants in the event.

Physical Barriers

For all events to be successful participants must be physically comfortable. If participants are not comfortable then it does not matter how good the speakers and the debate are, the event will not be a success.

Physical barriers will include anything which affects someone's comfort (e.g. seating and temperature) and which affects their audio/visual engagement with the event. The specific physical needs of the target audience for each event need to be met. This includes consideration of people with disabilities either sensory or physical (N.B. a great number of the population, particularly older audiences, will also have hidden disabilities which are not registered).

Emotional /Social Acceptance Barriers

These barriers are anything which makes the participants feel socially/emotionally excluded from the event e.g. the impression that they are not meant to be there, that they are not the "right sort" of people to attend such an event.

For this reason it is of fundamental importance that a realistic target audience is set for such events. If the people who attend the event feel that they are excluded they will not be motivated to engage with and join in the dialogue. This will reduce the likelihood of their attendance at a similar event in the future and also of engaging in any kind of further scientific debate.

Other factors which will contribute as a barrier to emotional/social acceptance includes a strong feeling of 'them and us' (e.g. certain sections of the audience know the speakers well and carry on previous conversations to which the rest of the audience have not been privy), the chair and/or speakers show partiality to who they speak to, the event is completely different to what people had expected.

Alternatively, if a participant feels that they will be the only one to express a particular view or that the majority of the participants are not empathetic to their opinion they may experience this as a barrier and not contribute.

Intellectual Barriers

These are barriers which prevent participants from wanting to contribute. If the event is boring, rather than thought provoking then people will want to leave rather than stay and contribute. If the event does not bring anything new (in terms of ideas/viewpoints/information/moral and ethical dimensions) to a topic then people will not want to contribute; why contribute if you have already heard it all before. If the event does not challenge people's viewpoints then they will not want to contribute; why contribute when you agree with what has been said. The event also has to be intellectually accessible; if people can't understand what has been said then they will not be able to contribute. This includes not only using language and jargon appropriate to the target audience but also presenting clear, structured arguments/points of discussion.

Social Capital Barriers

These are any barriers which prevent the consolidation of participants' experiences into something which is much greater than just attendance at and contribution to the event itself. The feelings/opinions etc raised by the event should not just end when participants walk out the door. If they do, then the event has not met its full potential. A Dana event must therefore provide a way in which the event can be extended into this to create meaning for the participants. Barriers could include the lack of suitable means or suggestions to continue/facilitate participants dialogue with one another e.g. no feedback system.